That's funny because I don't remember much moaning about that at all; on the contrary I recall constant moaning about the ball being passed back. I think there was almost universal approval of that rule change and I don't think the head of UEFA vehemently opposed it!
Limiting the number of reviews allowed is inconsistent with the rationale behind the change. We have seen that in the Ashes series this summer. The whole idea of the change is to get decisions on which "so much hangs", right. Giving captains the discretion to request, say, two reviews (a) introduces the extra element of stupid use of that discretion, and (b) fails to ensure that a game changing wrong decision is corrected. Getting all crucial decisions right requires all of them to be reviewable.
But if you review responsibly then you will get your review back and still have it when you need it. If you as a captain are fool enough to use it everytime Saurez falls over in the box then your manager better replace you in the decision making process. Like in the cricket initially it should be to elininate the howlers not the 50:50's that could go either way otherwise the game will never finish! The system needs to avoid reviewing every thing otherwaise it will completely ruin the game! Bah!
i remember that day against everton well, i was at villa park that day, but the football was pretty irrelevant in the end
Exactly so. As we saw in the cricket, a match was almost certainly won/lost because incorrect decisions (was it a couple?) stood simply due to the Australian captain making a mistake in his use of reviews. Yet the point of introducing the technology is to eliminate incorrect decisions full stop, not to introduce a new factor into how games are decided.
I agree with GM, the review system was introduced in cricket to remove the howlers, and it's up to the captain to use it responsibly so that they get the decisions corrected when such a mistake occurs. The problem in the Ashes were the captains, particularly Clarke, using reviews much more speculatively, and missing out when a genuine mistake happens. If reviews are limited, they'll be saved (or should be) for the big things like penalty calls, and we won't have drawn-out breaks in play for insignificant fouls in the middle of the pitch. Yes, there's a risk that it'll be used for time-wasting, but that could be reduced by saying that each review adds a minute to the clock.* Where technology can be used without a break in play (ie Hawkeye for offsides) then great, we should use it as much as possible. *As an aside, I wish it was a lot clearer how the amount of added times in games is calculated, the average amount must be creeping up each season, when things haven't really changed that much.
Very true, but I think it needs some balance if every decision is reviewed, they all may be correct but you'd have people leaving at half time for the last train (and that's on a saturday!) or only 12 minutes per half actually played because the officials can't even give a throw in because one team might disagree. I realise this is your point ultimately the technology could and probably will ruin the sport if used with out predjudice. but I think that it can be used sensibly and as supers suggests even adding to the theatre and excitment with reviews (the PL and SKY can do big bold and razzamataz). The key for me is that it should be hoped that it will not be needed more than once or twice a game (afterall how many goals are disallowed or allowed in the average match that shouldn't of been.) And limited reviews should ensure that it is just applied to those incidents of a goal scoring or red card magnitude, or at least thats the theory! Bah!
But surely robbie, its better to eradicate for example 50% of bad decisions then to let 100% just go by willy nilly?
Try telling that to the team/fans who are relegated because of one that didn't get reviewed. It's rather like saying it's better to have anti-nuclear missile defences which will cut out 50% of the missiles fired at you ........... pity about the other 50% (or 5% for that matter)
You are doing a good job of making it sound oh so reasonable and sensible GM. But all the while the original question remains: why not just leave it to the officials, as now? There's plenty of drama without needing the artificial drama of engineered suspense while waiting for a decision to be announced. And re. the idea of limiting it to disputed goals (not "disallowed" goals by the way, since allowing the goal may be the blunder) and red cards: (a) 2 yellows = a red, so in those cases the two yellows would need reviewing (but maybe you meant to limit it to "straight" reds -- even though a "2 yellows" red is as damaging to a team as a straight red) and (b) what about penalty decisions? The award or non-award of a penalty is almost as critical to the outcome of a game as a goal, and incidents giving rise to a penalty shout are quite common in a game.
But at least they would of had the chance to review it, better than no chance they just should of used the first review better. I think the nuke analogy is a bit ott death on a massed scale against 3pts which may or may not be critical to titles or relegation. Besides as long as the 50% gets through over ipshit and stopped over Norwich then it can't be all bad! Bah!
That's not quite what I was saying, I'm saying that a team can review near enough any decision from your list but, would u as captain risk a review for a first yellow? Not likely, I was suggesting that a sensible captain might save the -reviews for the highest level of incident, all discretionary of course. It could work, but the impetus would be on an intelligent captain and his players being honest with him on the validity of using the review, who knows that in it self may improve the game and player attitudes! Bah!
Here is a serious question. Accepting that umpires do make mistakes, and that DRS allows some of those errors to be corrected, how many of the cricket lovers amongst us would honestly say, hand on heart, that having DRS has really changed the game for the better and increased their enjoyment of it? Come on now, be truthful!
If we're indulging in reductio ad absurdum, should we not try and cure malaria because people will just die of something else anyway? Yes, unless the system is perfect there'll still be people moaning about injustice, but rather than last season where (if relegated) we could have pointed to half a dozen games where refs cost us significant points, with a video review system you might be left just pointing to a single instance over a season. If refs are costing you points in 15% of games it's a difficult pill to swallow, but if it's 3% of games, then you're much more likely to accept that you just weren't good enough in the other 97%. Maybe because it is? Why not leave it to the officials? You could equally ask, why not help the officials when we clearly can? What's the benefit of isolating the man in the middle to feel huge pressure on his every move, knowing that a mistake could cost someone millions of pounds? The point of a finite number of reviews is a game is unlikely to have more than 3 or 4 incidents that could effect the outcome. And if the captain calls a decision correctly then he keeps the review to use again. I'd let the Captain's review anything, but if they run out of reviews before the big mistake is made, that's tough. Any system is meant to stop the howlers that clearly effect results. If they choose to fritter away reviews on petty fouls in unthreatening areas of the pitch, that's their fault. A good captain then has to listen to his players, and the players have to be honest with themselves and their captains to get the best result from a match. I'm not a huge cricket fan, but I get infuriated when a call is clearly wrong, the players know, TV replays agree, but nothing can be done. With DRS, you've got big screens showing it, the fans get vocal when they can see the evidence in front of them, and I feel it adds to the spectacle. And after a review, everyone knows that (one way or another) justice has been done. So yes, I'd say I enjoy a game more when DRS is in use.
Me, I would, absolutely And when it's used correctly it has made the game fairer, quite obviously. But when it's used inappropriately then that's the captain/batsman's stupid fault, as we have seen numerous times this summer. You could even argue that it brings another skill into the game on the part of the captain. It's called evolution and moving with the times
I'm not exactly the biggest cricket fan but, what I do watch I actually real like it in cricket, ok so some silly things are getting reviewed sometimes but that only serves to make the skipper look silly. The biggest problem with drs is that it is still fallible as a process, but it still rights more wrongs than it misses. Bah!
